BVA9502155 DOCKET NO. 91-45 363 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for rheumatoid arthritis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michael P. Vander Meer, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from May 1952 to May 1956. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 1990 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This case was last before the Board in March 1993, at which time it was remanded for further development. A rating decision entered in January 1994 continued to deny the benefit sought on appeal, and a Supplemental Statement of the Case was issued the following month. The appeal was returned to and redocketed at the Board in November 1994. The case is now ready for appellate review. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran states that he experienced swelling in his hands in service, for which he asserts he received heat treatments. He contends, in essence, that such swelling was an initial manifestation of his rheumatoid arthritis which, though first diagnosed subsequent to service, must nevertheless be deemed to have originated during service. DECISION OF THE BOARD In accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), following review and consideration of all evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the veteran has not submitted evidence of a well grounded claim for service connection for rheumatoid arthritis. FINDING OF FACT The claim for service connection for rheumatoid arthritis is not plausible. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim for service connection for rheumatoid arthritis is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The threshold question to be answered concerning the veteran's claim for service connection for rheumatoid arthritis is whether he has presented evidence of a well grounded claim, that is, one which is plausible and meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); see Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992). If an appellant does not submit evidence of a well grounded claim, the VA is under no duty to assist him in developing facts pertinent to his claim. See Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). For the reasons set forth below, the Board finds that the veteran has not met his burden of submitting evidence to support a belief that his claim of entitlement to service connection for rheumatoid arthritis is well grounded. The veteran contends that swelling in his hands experienced during service, for which he asserts he received heat treatments, must be seen as an initial manifestation of his rheumatoid arthritis diagnosed subsequent to service. In this regard, service medical records reflect that the veteran complained of pain in his back in June 1953 and a stiff neck in January 1955, for which latter problem treatment included exposure to a heat lamp. In February 1955, treatment with a heat lamp was also undertaken in response to a cyst on the veteran's back; and backache of which the veteran complained in June 1955 was treated by manipulation. The veteran is also noted to have had a boil on his back in July 1955, and an apparent injury to one of the veteran's hands is shown to have been redressed in January 1956. In March 1956, hot soaks were administered in treatment of the veteran's sore right thumb. Service medical records are negative for any reference to rheumatoid arthritis. Subsequent to service, the report of a January 1989 state disability evaluation reflects that the veteran began experiencing episodes of joint pain and swelling in each knee in the early 1970's, which eventually spread to his upper extremities over the next decade. Subsequent to a December 1989 statement received from Paul J. Valigorsky, M.D., wherein the physician originally indicated having initially treated the veteran for rheumatoid arthritis in July 1956, a statement received from such physician in June 1992 clarifies that he had treated the veteran for the previous 15 years for rheumatoid arthritis and that his records did not reflect that he had treated the veteran for rheumatoid arthritis during 1956. Records pertaining to treatment rendered the veteran by Dr. Valigorsky reflect that the veteran began receiving gold injections in the mid-1980's, and the diagnosis on VA examination in April 1989, at which time the veteran was noted to be receiving gold injections once a month, was rheumatoid arthritis. Most recently, the veteran is shown to have undergone surgery at a VA facility in October 1991 in response to rheumatoid arthritic deformities involving the left hand and forearm. In considering the veteran's claim for service connection for rheumatoid arthritis, the Board would reiterate that service medical records, which do not substantiate the veteran's current contentions relative to experiencing swelling in his hands in service or receiving heat treatments therefor, though he is shown to have received heat treatments in response to a stiff neck and a cyst on his back, are negative for any reference to rheumatoid arthritis. Subsequent to service, the Board would point out that rheumatoid arthritis was not initially diagnosed until the 1980's, many years after service, and thus there is no basis for granting service connection for such disease on a presumptive basis. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (1993). Moreover, the record is negative for any clinical documentation attributing the veteran's rheumatoid arthritis to service. Inasmuch as the determinative issue, given the veteran's contentions, involves medical causation, and in the absence of any medical evidence relating the veteran's rheumatoid arthritis to service, a plausible claim for service connection for such disease is not presented. See Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993). In reaching the foregoing determination, the Board has been sensitive to the veteran's hearing testimony elaborating on his belief that his currently diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis was initially manifested during service. However, while such contention has been carefully considered, the Board would respectfully point out that the veteran is, as a layperson, not competent to offer evidence requiring medical expertise. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992). Finally, although the Board has considered and disposed of this appeal on a ground different from that of the RO, the veteran has not been prejudiced by the Board's decision. This is because in assuming that the veteran's claim for service connection for rheumatoid arthritis was well grounded, the RO accorded the veteran greater consideration than this claim in fact warranted under the circumstances. Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 384, 392- 94 (1993). To remand this case to the RO for consideration of the issue of whether this claim is well grounded would be pointless and, in light of the law cited above, would not result in a determination favorable to the veteran. VA O.G.C. Prec. Op. 16-92, 57 Fed. Reg. 49, 747 (1992). ORDER Evidence of a well grounded claim not having been submitted, the appeal for service connection for rheumatoid arthritis is dismissed. F. JUDGE FLOWERS Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.